proceeded, not ridiculously, but with all that caution which became them. For in the first heat and vehemence of the Plot, the Avenues of White-Hall were more strictly Guarded: His Majesty abstaining from Places of publick Entertainment, and the Ministers taking all necessary Care in Council, both to discover Conspiracies and to prevent them. So, that simply considered, the Popish Plot has nothing to do with the Dissolution of Four Parliaments. But the Use which has been made of it by the House of Commons to Dis-inherit the Duke, to deny the King Supplies, and to make some Votes, which the King declares to be illegal, are the real and plain occasions of dissolving those Parliaments. 'Tis only affirm'd, but never will be prov'd by this Author, that the King or his Ministers have ever been desirous to stifle the Plot, and not to have it search'd into the bottom. For to what end has his Majesty so often offer'd the Popish Lords to be brought to their Trial, but that their innocence or guilt, and consequently, that of the whole party might be made manifest? Or why, after the execution of the Lord Stafford, did the House of Commons stop at the other Lords, and not proceed to try them in their turns? Did his Majesty stifle the Plot when he offered them, or did they refuse to sound the depth of it, when they would not touch upon them? If it were for want of Witnesses, which is all that can be said, the case is deplorable on the part of the accused; who can neither be bail'd, because impeach'd in Parliament, nor admitted to be tryed, for fear they should be acquitted for want of evidence. I do not doubt but his Majesty, after having done what in him lies for the utmost discovery of the Plot, both by frequent Proclamations of Indemnity, and Reward, to such as would come in, and discover more, and by several others too long to repeat, is desirous (for what good man is not?) that his care and trouble might be over. But I am much deceiv'd, if the Antimonarchical Party be of the same opinion; or that they desire the Plot should be either wholly discover'd, or fully ended. For 'tis evidently their Interest to keep it on foot, as long as possibly they can; and to give it hot water, as often as 'tis dying; for while they are in possession of this Jewel, they make themselves masters of the people. For this very reason I have often said, even from the beginning of the Discovery, that the Presbyterians would never let it go out of their hands, but manage it to the last inch upon a Save-all. And that if ever they had tryed one Lord, they would value themselves upon that Conquest, as long as ever it would last with the Populace: but whatever came on't, be sure to leave a Nest Egg in the Tower: And since I doubt not, but what so mean a Judge as I am could so easily discover, could not possibly escape the vigilancy of those who are at the Helm; I am apt to think, that his Majesty saw at least as great a danger arising to him from the discontented spirits of the popular Faction, as from the Papists. For is it not plain, that ever since the beginning of the Plot, they have been lopping off from the Crown whatever part of the Prerogative they could reach? and incroaching into Soveraignty and Arbitrary Power themselves, while they seem'd to fear it from the King? How then could his Majesty be blam'd, if he were forc'd to dissolve those Parliaments, which instead of giving him relief, made their Advantages upon his Distresses; and while they pretended a care of his Person on the one hand, were plucking at his Scepter with the other?

After this, the Pamphleteer gives us a long Bead-roll of Dangerfield's Plot, Captain Ely, young Tongue, Fitz-Gerard and Mr. Ray, rails at some, and commends others as far as his skill in Hyperbole will carry him. Which all put together, amounts to no more than only this, that he whom they called Rogue before, when he comes into their party, pays his Garnish, and is adopted into the name of an honest man. Thus Ray was no Villain, when he accus'd Colonel Sackvile, before the House of Commons; but when he failed of the reward of godliness at their hands, and from a Wig became a tearing Tory in new Cloaths, our Author puts him upon the File of Rogues, with this brand, Than whom a more notorious and known Villian lives not.

The next thing be falls upon, is the Succession: which the King declares, He will have preserved in its due descent. Now our Author despairing, it seems, that an Exclusion should pass by Bill, urges, That the Right of Nature and Nations will impower Subjects to deliver a Protestant Kingdom from a Popish King. The Law of Nations, is so undoubtedly, against him, that I am sure he dares not stick to that Plea: but will be forc'd to reply, that the Civil Law was made in favour of Monarchy: why then did he appeal to it? And for the Law of Nature, I know not what it has to do with Protestants or Papists, except he can prove that the English Nation is naturally Protestant; and then I would enquire of him what Countrymen our Fore-fathers were? But if he means by the Law of Nature, self-preservation and defence; even that neither will look but a squint upon Religion; for a man of any Religion, and a man of no Religion, are equally bound to preserve their lives. But I answer positively to what he would be at; that the Law of self-preservation impowers not a Subject to rise in Arms against his Soveraign, of another Religion, upon supposition of what he may do in his prejudice hereafter: for, since it is impossible that a moral certainty should be made out of a future contingency, and consequently, that the Soveraign may not extend his Power to the prejudice of any mans Liberty or Religion: The probability (which is the worst that they can put it) is not enough to absolve a Subject who rises in Arms, from Rebellion, in foro Conscientiae. We read of a divine Command to obey Superior Powers: and the Duke will lawfully be such, no Bill of Exclusion having past against him in his Brother's life: Besides this, we have the Examples of Primitive Christians, even under Heathen Emperors, always suffering, yet never taking up Arms, during ten Persecutions. But we have no Text, no Primitive Example encouraging us to rebel against a Christian Prince, tho of a different Perswasion. And to say there were then no Christian Princes when the New Testament was written, will avail our Author little; for the Argument is a Fortiori: if it be unlawful to rebel against a Heathen Emperor, then much more against a Christian King. The Corollary is this, and every unbiassed sober man will subscribe to it, that since we cannot pry into the secret Decrees of God, for the knowledge of future Events, we ought to rely upon his Providence, for the Succession; without either plunging our present King into necessities, for what may never happen; or refusing our obedience to one hereafter, who in the course of nature may succeed him. One, who if he had the will, could never have the power to settle Popery in England, or to bring in Arbitrary Government.

But the Monarchy will not be destroyed, and the Protestant Religion will be preserved, if we may have a Protestant Successor.

If his party had thought, that this had been a true Expedient, I am confident it had been mentioned in the last Parliament at Westminster. But there, altum silentium not one word of it. Was it because the Machine was not then in readiness to move! and that the Exclusion must first pass? or more truly was it ever intended to be urged? I am not ashamed to say, that I particularly honour the Duke of Monmouth: but whether his nomination to succeed, would, at the bottom be pleasing to the Heads of his Cabal, I somewhat doubt. To keep him fast to them by some remote hopes of it, may be no ill Policy. To have him in a readiness to head an Army, in case it should please God the King should die before the Duke, is the design; and then perhaps he has reason to expect more from a Chance